"Concerns Remain About Climate Advocates’ Influence On Judicial Independence" Article Reflection No. 175 (3/8/2026)

Article: “Concerns Remain About Climate Advocates’ Influence On Judicial Independence” 

Reflection:

In the Forbes article “Concerns Remain About Climate Advocates’ Influence On Judicial Independence,” journalist Dan Eberhart discusses the Federal Judicial Center (FJC)’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a resource for a judge to use as an independent, non-political source of information. Eberhart explains that a state Attorneys General group has raised concern about the authors and attributions of a climate science section from the manual, referring to how the writers had connections to advocacy in the climate sector. FJC later removed this chapter from the manual; however, the National Academy of Sciences website continues to provide access to this portion of the manual. The article is categorized under “Business” and “Energy” on the Forbes online platform and reads more like an opinion story as the author establishes the call to action for—to maintain a neutral, independent court system—taking out the climate science portion from the manual altogether. 

To be honest, this was hard for me to read because I value climate advocacy. I have to admit, independent judiciary is a priority, and I do see the perspective of how it can be problematic for those with experience in climate advocacy to be the authors of this manual—a manual with the purpose of providing information that is far away from any large biases. I think that it’s inevitable for there to be at least some bias—we are human after all—but I think the question comes down to how to minimize that bias. Addressing this question seems so difficult in this day and age, especially with how there is the debate over the information regarding climate change and what is fact versus not fact. I wonder how the FJC writers are selected—is there criteria that evaluate the level of potential biases based on previous (e.g.) environmental work?